Chapter 5: Criminal Responsibility and the Capacity to Commit a Crime

Criminal responsibility requires

more than proving that the defendant committed the unlawful physical act (actus reus)

The state must also show that the defendant possessed a mind

capable of being held legally accountable for the act

Capacity

ability to form the required criminal intent/mens rea

Actus reus + legally sufficient mental capacity =

criminal responsibility

Trial by ordeal

a test used to determine criminal responsibility in ancient Eng. involving subjecting the individuals to a tortuous ordeal. These ordeals were essentially appeals to God; surviving the ordeal was viewed as god’s judgment of innocence (trial by fire/water)

witchcraft

if you were a witch you were capable of causing great social harm

Criminal Liability or Capacity are seen as base requirements for

holding a person accountable for commissions of acts that are crimes → absence of it you can use the excuse defense

Affirmative defense

legal argument where the defendant admits to the conduct but introduces new facts to justify or excuse their actions, meaning they should not be held criminally liable

• excuse defense

• justification defense

Excuse defense

a defense where the acts are crimes but the actor is excused from responsibility ex. Insanity

Justification Defense

a defense where the acts are not crimes because the actor was justified in acting ex. Causing injury or death b/c of self defense

Preponderance of the Evidence

he greater weight of the evidence, though not necessarily the amount needed to remove every reasonable doubt. It is proof sufficient to incline a reasonable person toward one side of an issue rather than the other

Most states have Model Penal Code 112:

requires the prosecution to prove an affirmative defense that relates to an element of the crim, once some evidence showing the defense has been introduced

Intellectually disabled - couldn't be subjected to

death penalty

Intellectually disabled needs evidence of

• “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning”

• “significant limitation of two or more adaptive skills such as communication, self care and self direction”

• “onset before age 18”

Infant (child)

person who has not yet reached the age of majority, whether that age is 18, 19, 20, 21 (as determines by the law of each jurisdiction)

exceptions to infant (child)

not able to enter into contracts, make wills, vote

Under age 7

irrebuttable/irreversible presumption of incapacity → conclusively presumed unable to form criminal intent

Age 7–14

rebuttable presumption of incapacity → prosecution had to prove the child understood the wrongfulness of the specific conduct

the age rules developed into

the modern juvenile court system

Many states have codifies some version of the

CL rules on children's criminal capacity, they vary on the age limits adopted

While children under a minimum jurisdiction-selected age are

conclusively presumed to lack the capacity to commit a crime, those over that threshold (typically around 14) are inferred capable of forming criminal intent, though they can still present evidence of incapacity and are generally prosecuted through the juvenile court system

7 factors to consider in determining capacity

1. The nature of the crime 

2. The child's age and maturity

3. Whether the child evidenced a desire for secrecy 

4. Whether the child told the victim (if any) not to tell 

5. Prior conduct similar to that charged

6. Any consequences that attached to the prior conduct, and 

7. Whether the child had made an acknowledgement that the behavior is wrong and could lead to detention

All states have enacted statutes governing the

jurisdiction of children’s (juvenile court)

These courts deal with children who are delinquent and in need of supervision or with children who are

neglected and dependent

States statues also generally provide that juvenile courts may

waive jurisdiction to the adult courts of children otherwise under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court

Goal of Juvenile courts

rehabilitation, protection, correction, and education rather than pure punishment

Modifications for juveniles to go to adult courts

Over a designated age (16) (juvenile courts have no jurisdiction) →

• crimes usually murder, sexual assault, use of a firearm in a crime, felony resulted in death or serious bodily harm

Mandatory transfer

juvenile court grant the prosecution’s motion to transfer to adult court

discretionary transfer

1. if minor child has been charged in juvenile court (such as 16), the state may file a motion to juvenile court for transfer to adult court

2. gives the prosecutor the discretion to charge in adult court any person over 16 who has committed a felony

Modern juvenile justice developed from the common-law infancy rules and treats children as _____ minds rather than miniature adults

developing

Insanity is a legal classification, NOT a

medical or psychiatric diagnosis

A person may have a serious mental illness medically but still not

meet the legal definition of insanity

Whether someone is legally insane depends on the

applicable legal test

a legal strategy where a defendant argues they are not responsible for a criminal act because

a severe mental disease or defect prevented them from understanding the nature of their actions or knowing they were wrong

Insanity tests

tests to determine legal and moral liability

Most jurisdictions the burden is on the

defendant to prove the insanity defense usually by a preponderance of the evidence (some states prosecution must prove the defendant was sane)

Found insane at the time the crime occurred

court enters not guilty by reason of insanity

• Defendant may never again be tried for the offense

  Almost always committed to a mental institution under the laws of that state or fed govt

  
  

Timing is critical

insanity focuses ONLY on the defendant's mental state at the exact time the crime was committed

A defendant can be lucid before and after the crime and still potentially

satisfy the insanity defense

Insanity

mental state at the time of the crime

Tests Used to Determine Insanity

1. Cognitive incapacity (M'Naghten Rule) 

2. Moral incapacity (M'Naghten Rule) 

3. Volitional incapacity and (Model Penal Code substantial capacity rule)

4. The product of mental illness (product of mental illness rule)

Four Major Approaches to Insanity

1. cognitive incapacity → M'Naghten

2. Volitional incapacity → Irresistible Impulse

3. Product of mental illness → Durham

4. Substantial capacity → Model Penal Code

cognitive incapacity → M'Naghten

• Could not understand the nature/quality of the act OR

• Could not understand that the act was wrong.

Volitional incapacity → Irresistible Impulse

Defendant knew the act was wrong but mental illness destroyed their ability to control their conduct.

Product of mental illness → Durham

Criminal act was the product of a mental disease or defect.

Substantial capacity → Model Penal Code

Defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness OR conform conduct to law.

Cognition

"Did I understand what I was doing / that it was wrong?"

Volition

"Could I control my conduct?"

“Right and Wrong” Test

an insanity test that claims that defendants are not legally responsible for their acts if, due to a defect of the mind, at the time of the crime they were unable to understand the difference between right and wrong

The M’Naghten Case (cognitive)

a defendant is not legally responsible for his acts if at the time the defendant was “laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was wrong

The M’Naghten Case (cognitive): When a person, b/c of mental illness, either has cognitive incapacity that is

1. does not know what the character of actions taken, or

2. moral incapacity that is, the person does not know that the actions taken were wrong

The M’Naghten Case (cognitive): Burden of Proof

1. every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proven to (the jurys) satisfaction;

2. and that to establish a defense on the group of insanity ,it must be clearly proved

M'Naghten askes

whether the defendant understood the nature/quality of the act or understood that the act was wrong

Volitional incapacity called irresistible impulse added to

M’Naghten rule

Volitional incapacity must prove

if they knew what they were doing was wrong, mental illness prevented them from controlling their conduct

• Not widely adopted

Focuses on volitional incapacity, meaning the defendant

may understand that the conduct is wrong but cannot control their conduct because of mental disease

Product of mental illness (durham product test):

an accused id not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect

Durham/Product Test asks

whether the unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect

Durham test is

broader than M'Naghten because it does not focus solely on whether the defendant knew right from wrong

durham product test

Based on a substantial lack of mental capacity rather than a complete lack of capacity

Insanity Defense Reform Act

Establishes a rule for federal criminal prosecutions that is virtually identical to the M’Naghten rule:

• it is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under a federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the offense, ,the defendant, as a result of severe mental illness or defect, was unable to appreciate does not otherwise constitute a defense

“Substantial Capacity” Test

1. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease of defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirement of the law

2. As used in the article, the terms mental disease or defect do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct

Some states have abolished the insanity defense

idaho, montana, kansas, nevada, utah

MPC combines

cognition + volition

Cognitive

Did the defendant lack substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality/wrongfulness of the conduct?

Volitional

Did the defendant lack substantial capacity to conform their conduct to the requirements of law?

Unlike M'Naghten, the MPC does not require a

total inability to understand or control behavior. A substantial lack of capacity is enough

_____ does NOT have a Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) verdict

Massachusetts

A defendant may not be found guilty but mentally ill if all the following are found beyond a reasonable doubt

1. Defendant is guilty of the offense

2. Defendant was mentally ill at the time the offense was committed

3. Defendant was not legally insane at the time the offense was committed

The court can impose

any standard sentence for the crime charged

Prison authorities must provide

require psychiatric or psychological treatment in an appropriate setting to restore the offender’s capacity

Is mental illness is cured before the sentence ends,

the offender returned to prison to serve the remainder of their time

GBMI designed to protect the public from

violence inflicted by people with mental ailments who previously slipped through the cracks in the criminal justice system

GBMI BoP

1. Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged

2. The jury must determine if the defendant was legally insane

Dual verdicts

a jury can potentially reach verdicts of both insanity and GBMI depending on the specific chargers and case facts

GBMI was adopted by many states because of dissatisfaction with

traditional insanity acquittals

GBMI recognizes that the defendant has a mental illness but

determines that the illness does not rise to the level of legal insanity

GBMI the defendant remains

criminally responsible, receives the normal criminal sentence, and receives psychiatric treatment while incarcerated

Insanity

legally not responsible → possible commitment to psychiatric facility

GBMI

guilty and criminally responsible → prison sentence + mental health treatment

Mental Conditions that do not Satisfy the Insanity Defense

• Battered women syndrome

• Television intoxication

• premenstrual syndrome

• cultural defenses

• compulsive gambling

• Voluntary intoxication

• Personality disorders

• Sociopathy

• Psychopathy

Voluntary intoxication generally does NOT

provide a complete defense

in some jurisdictions, extreme voluntary intoxication may be introduced to show that the defendant could

not form the specific intent required for a particular offense

• ex. inability to form premeditated intent for first-degree murder may reduce the offense to a lesser offense such as manslaughter, depending on jurisdiction

Therefore, intoxication may sometimes affect the degree of the offense rather than

completely excuse the defendant

Virtually all states have statutes that reject such voluntary intox or drug abuse acts as a

sufficient basis for the insanity defense

Distinction between “temporary” intox induced insanity vs “settles” intox induced insanity

depends on duration, sober state, cause, legal defense

Some states permit evidence of intoxication or drug abuse to be used in an insanity defense, if it shows the intoxication or abuse triggered a pre-existing mental illness that would satisfy

the insanity defense

Severe psychosis that destroys reality testing vs. personality/behavioral disorders

that may make someone more antisocial or violent

Defense of Diminished Capacity

A defense for criminal responsibility based on the fact that because of mental or emotional conditions, the defendant did not possess the required mens rea for conviction of crime charged

In fed and state cases, diminished capacity is used to negate a

specific intent element of a crime

dc: Can the same evidence be used where the crime is a general intent crime?

Mostly no except in unusual cases

Diminished capacity ≠

insanity

Insanity

can excuse criminal responsibility

Diminished capacity

generally attacks the required mens rea for a particular crime

dc: It does not necessarily result in acquittal; instead, it may

reduce the offense to a lesser crime

• ex. Defendant cannot form the deliberate premeditation required for first-degree murder → may be convicted of second-degree murder instead.

Impaired capacity vs

no capacity

insanity looks

backward: What was the defendant's mental state when the crime occurred?

competency looks

at the present: Is the defendant mentally capable of participating in the current trial?

A defendant must be competent (mentally fit) before the govt. can force him or her to

go to trial on criminal charges

Competency to stand trial

defendants must have the ability to cooperate with their attorneys and the ability to understand the chargers and proceedings against them